Why do we need a "flat tax" or a "fair tax". For 90% of Americans, who take the "standard deduction", tax calculations aren't even "calculations". I could write an Excel spreadsheet to do them in an hour. The govt has ALL of the relevant information and could just do them for the people. You don't need to do some kind of "flat tax" or "Fair tax". It already is EASY
The problem is that most Americans don't understand it because of laws like this one.
You can still "target" your latin-dancing party. You can target "only white people" if you want to advertise your "Better Homes and Gardens" cookbook. You can target people for all kinds of ads, legally.
The law is only about housing.
This is pretty simple. We have some advertising laws in the USA. You can't target housing ads towards certain ethnic groups You can't target tobacco at children You can't advertise medication without listing all side-effects etc
Facebook fucked up by using a generic form for all advertising. They didn't perform their due diligence and verify that they were complying with the advertising laws. This is a REALLY STUPID mistake on Facebook's part.
There is an EXPLICIT law that says that advertisers(facebook and google are advertisers) cannot target certain types of ads. If they even ALLOWED the targeting, it would be illegal. Similarly, many countries have laws that you cannot target children with smoking ads. If Facebook allowed tobacco companies to buy ads targeting children, they would be in deep shit
The problem is that Facebook naively didn't check the law about housing advertisement. This is a GIANT FUCK-UP on Facebook's part.
I understand that you want to default to the classic "safehaven" position, but that doesn't apply. Facebook isn't an internet forum when they post ads. They are an advertising company and advertising companies have been regulated for over a century.
Calling them out is _defending_ science, just be consistent, demand raw data. Ignore unsupported conclusions. Especially leftists concluding 'we'll just have to smash capitalism' (or any other group with an _obvious_ agenda).
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I don't think there is anything inherently crazy about saying that capitalism might cease to be a functional system to operate a global economy. Capitalism is pretty much the laziest economic system you could possibly create. It is successful simply because it is so heuristically simple. It is the "natural selection" of economic systems. If it breaks, it will self-correct. However, just like natural selection, you can't just use it for everything.
We don't use evolution to develop new strains of rice. We don't use natural selection to farm. We don't use natural selection to develop cures for disease. At a certain point, despite the beauty, strength, and simplicity of natural selection, we had to use a more complicated system.
The UN paper isn't groundbreaking, but it isn't unscientific. Energy generation will create direct and indirect costs. As energy markets shift towards new generation technologies, those technologies will have more indirect costs. Current capitalistic models don't really have a good way to deal with these issues. In fact, we have had this issue before. The raw capitalism of the gilded age gave us the rampant pollution of shit-clogged streets and undrinkable water. This is why the USA wound up with a more refined vision of capitalism that saw more government regulation and oversight of pollution, because it was understood that these external costs were too high.
As usual, the Star Trek replicator "post-scarcity" world believers ignore how to get there the most quickly, which is the freedom to innovate with free market economics, aided by university research.
If capitalism dies, it will be because of its own success in a world of freedom and free people have moved on, and not because some power hungry snot in government decides for it on its own behalf.
Properly speaking, capitalism is a corollary of freedom, in the economic world.
I dont think anyone disagrees. Free-market capitalism is great. It is a bit like natural selection. You get very robust and successful specimens out of the process. The problem is that just like natural selection, shit can get a bit out of control. The old animals don't simply move over and let the new animals in. The world has to burn a bit. You get malthusian collapses and periods of starvation. Everything eventually settles down and equilibrium is reached(after a few hundred generations), but it isn't a smooth transition.
Also, just like natural selection, stuff gets completely out of control if you pump unlimited resources into an environment. Imagine you had an aquarium, and you started pumping it full of fish food. The fish aren't simply going to eat until they are full and then allow the other animals to thrive. The larger fish will gourge themselves. Some of them will gourge themselves to death if you aren't careful. They will grow huge. They will still attack all of the smaller fish that they can now fit in their mouth. It won't be because of any need for food, rather it will be a basic predatory instinct. They will use their new size to dominate the fish tank. Even with the unlimited food supply, they will still be attacking all of the other organisms in the aquarium. They will pick the aquarium clean, until you have nothing in the tank but a few massive fish. The massive fish wont even be able to swim.
No one is saying that natural selection/free-market is bad. In fact, it is very good. Evolutionary algorithms are some of the best in the world to solve difficult computer problems. The issue is that they are messy. They are incredibly messy. They will require many generations of destruction to reach equilibrium. That is fine if we are talking about bits of data. It can be a bit more dubious if we are talking about human lives. They also frequently come up with solutions which are very counter-intuitive and downright cruel. Once again, not so bad in some realms. Awful when discussing human beings. The solution to the problem is to keep some hand on the system and make sure that the experiment of the free-market doesn't get too crazy. We don't want 5-year-olds working in mines or people being sold as slaves, both of which are free-market solutions. You can debate how much 'regulation' you want on that experiment, but don't pretend for a second you want a completely unregulated free market. I can promise you that a world without regulation would be very messy and very ugly. After a few thousand years, it might settle down, but in the meantime many millions of people would suffer. So the real debate is only how tightly you want to rein in the experiment.
Now, as far as a post-scarcity world: You want to get there more quickly? Why? We have no idea how to handle that transition and the transition will be ugly as fuck. Lets be honest, we are pretty much already to a post-scarcity world. Right now, the total energy cost to build a solar power plant is less than the output of the solar power plant. What does that mean? Hypothetically I could build a 1 MW solar plant, and then exclusively energy from that solar plant over the next 30 years to build a 1.2 MW plant. That would include the mining, refining, fabrication, feeding the workers, harvesting their food, etc. Unfortunately, the gains are pretty minimal and without an energy market it doesn't quite work out right now. However, we are on the precipice of a world where energy is basically just limited to how muc
^^ Damn lazy scientists who can't get real jobs!!!
If I ever build a time machine, I will go back and kick Isaac Newton and Leibniz in the balls so hard!! what did they ever do to help mankind? Two homosexuals who just wrote books and played around in a library. Just a bunch of "scientists". They should have got REAL JOBS./s
Science may seem esoteric and pointless, but amazingly, since we started doing this science shit we went from being a bunch of idiots to a rapid technologically progressive world. So maybe you should back off on attacking science? Unless you have a better idea of how to get people into outer space?
It is, but it would be an interesting campaign position if the Democrats pushed through a "tax reform" bill which gave massive tax deductions to the wealthy. Obama even wanted to lower the corporate tax rate, and he couldn't pull it off despite almost all economists agreeing that it would be beneficial.
Even if the Ultra-Rich literally OWNED Hillary, I seriously doubt that the Democrats were suddenly going to start passing laissez-faire legislation and tax bills for that systemically favored wealthy Wall Street donors. You can argue that Hillary was a "wall street friendly" Democrat and that she wouldn't be as hard on the rich as Bernie Sanders. That is a fair point. However, you can't pretend that a "wall street friendly" Democrat = "wall street friendly" Republican.
We don't actually conduct national elections based on the popular vote. That's so that the people in 48 other states in our republic aren't ruled by the dense urban populations in a couple of coastal counties.
I don't really care about all of this Trump vs Hillary bullshit, but this is mathematically not true. I really wish people would look at a map. Those dense urban population exist in states with really high electoral counts. Think about it for even a second. Where are your "dense urban populations"? California, New York, Florida, Texas. Where do you get all of your electoral votes? California, New York, Florida, Texas!!!!
The electoral vote vs the popular vote is really only different in close elections. If you changed the rules, it wouldn't even change the outcome of elections(except Washington D.C. would suddenly matter). It has nothing to do with urban vs rural. It hasn't mattered since the Civil War.
THE REAL REASON FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE Electoral votes are awarded based on population, not on eligible voters. Even illegal immigrants count towards the total.
Originally, very few people were eligible to vote(land owning white males in most states). Voter turnout was around 5% of total population. The Southern Plantation States figured out that they would be at a big disadvantage if 'electoral' votes were based on eligible voters. They devised a system based on total population. This meant that slaves, women, native Americans, children, etc ALL counted towards your 'electoral' votes.
It was so lopsided, that they actually had to come to a compromise where slaves were only partially counted.(The 3/5ths Compromise). Why? Because Plantation states were sweeping the table on Presidential elections.
While California says you can't be fired for HAVING a political opinion, you can be fired for expressing it. In the rest of the US, your boss can walk in and fire you just for posting a Pro-Trump picture on your personal facebook page. Alternatively, he could just ask every Republican to raise their hand and then tell everyone who didn't raise their hand, "You're fired". California banned this practice. However, your boss can still fire you for wearing a Trump hat to work or sending an internal email that advocates for Hillary Clinton.
Whistleblower Protection You are a pretty weird whistleblower if you complain internally about a public practice. I cannot imagine anyone EVER considering this a case of whistleblowing. That would be like an Apple engineer sending around an internal memo about the small battery in their new phones, and then people calling that "whistleblowing". You can't blow the whistle on something that everyone knows about!
Right to Discuss Working Conditions May be viable. Unfortunately, the memo didn't really discuss working conditions. It discussed business practices. Working conditions addresses how the business practices have an impact on the employee. He was discussing how he felt they were wrong-headed and misguided. Those might be fair assessments, but they are not addressing HIS working conditions. Did he work more hours because of the hiring practices? Did he get less time off? Did it impact him in any demonstrable way?
He was not discussing "work conditions". Work conditions would be his hours or wages. Not his opinion of how executives have decided to run the company. If he was discussing the impact that their choices had on HIS work, that would be different. He was just complaining about the impact to the company. That isn't "working conditions".
He was not discussing his political opinions. Criticizing the hiring practices of your company and the values they attach to their hiring IS NOT your protected political opinion. It is a direct critique of your employer. If your employer promoted "green energy" and you said "green energy is a bunch of bullshit crap", you aren't expressing your political opinion. You are criticizing your employer. Even though some political parties hold this opinion, you are directing it at your employer.
Affirmative Action IS ILLEGAL in California. For the GOVERNMENT. It is illegal for the state of California to mandate affirmative action or for any government-run agency to enact affirmative action. It isn't illegal for private companies to promote ethnically-diverse workplaces, as long as they do not violate the Civil Rights Act. Your third point is bullshit and meaningless.
You work at a power station, so you probably already realized that the real currency of the world is the kWh(or megajoule). Since 2010, solar and wind have been able to produce more energy during their lifetime than the total amount of energy needed to create/ship/install the product.
Robots build everything and we hypothetically have unlimited energy(we just need to use energy to build more energy production units). That is known as a post-scarcity economy. That is what Keynes was beginning to point towards. Think of "Star Trek" or the Culture book series.
Anyway, I would argue that people work for 40-hours per week because it is the amount of work that keeps them sane. Work less and you feel lazy. We will probably always be doing about 40 hours of work, even in retirement.
No it isn't. The legal authority to create an agency isn't limited by the constitution. You are a moron. The constitution limits the authority to pass laws. The federal department of education does not enforce any laws and is therefore entirely legal.
You mean education standards based on the expert recommendations of pedagogy experts and researchers? You mean science standards that aren't based on religion or mythology?
Why doesn't it make sense to have a federal standard for education? Because we wind up with "common core"? You realize that common core was a wildly successful and heavily endorsed set of standards that almost everyone in education circles thought was a great idea? The only reason you hate it is because you are too stupid to understand how to teach math to an eight-year-old.
Can't wait to see all the anecdotes about chemicals that cause cancer.
This study is not stating that if we all lived in a paleo-era utopia that we wouldn't get any cancer. It is simply stating that cancer isn't pre-cooked into our lives. If we lived in a perfectly sterile environment and did not expose ourselves to any energy of any kind, we would be very unlikely to develop cancer. We would just die due to a vitamin D deficiency and a lack of human contact.
I get it. All of this is confusing. How about we don't get caught up in food trends?
The link between processed meat and cancer has been known for almost 100 years. One of the first two things the FDA did was regulate nitrates in sausage and ban sarsaparilla. We can be pretty confident that both of those things will kill you. Alcohol? We banned that for nearly a decade because of rampant alcohol abuse and death.
Sugar? Fat? Red Meat? Who knows at this point. Don't worry about it too much.
It was relevant because it was one of the issues highlighted at the time. Also, Reagan announced the overhaul as a RESPONSE to the strike, but it wasn't given the type of fast-track authorization that would have made it useful
I disagree with this general idea that the police can go fuck themselves because the NSA were a bunch of assholes. The NSA isn't even a law enforcement organization, it is a code-breaking espionage organization. Do you similarly ignore the FAA rules about smoking on an airplanes because the EPA caused a chemical spill?
That being said, I have no sympathy for the police position. They obviously want all the information they can possibly access. It makes it easier to do their job. Everyone wants their job to be easier and everyone thinks that rules don't really apply to them. Every computer user at a large company thinks the IT rules are bullshit and proves my point. It would be easier if they could backdoor into any cellphone and it would be easier if we left all of the accounting files in dropbox without a password. However, we aren't going to do either of those things because they are insanely reckless.
To be clear, Lithium based batteries have decay issues not present in other technologies. The "driving hard" and charging behavior of lithium isn't as deleterious as service life.
Well, just to blow your final assumption out of the water. Pretty much every single person has agreed that the Leaf is a "piece of shit" car from a luxury perspective. That "$15k new car" is probably going to be just as nice as the leaf. You might want to use the Chevy Volt, which people generally like.
I disagree on a couple of points. Electricity is no more scarce than water. The Earth is being bombarded with 77 Petrawatts of solar energy every moment. We could harvest a great deal of that energy as solar/wind/hydro energy. We are not harvesting it. Electricity is not a "finite resource". We currently use fossil fuels(a finite resource) to create the majority of of electricity, but there is no concrete reason for electricity to be linked with a finite resource.
If we desalinate water, it will be sold by the volumetric unit. This creates a market price for water.This will change the water market. This is what you want to accomplish.It might crash and burn rather quickly, but it would accomplish your goal, so why oppose it?
Slashdot Mirror
Why do we need a "flat tax" or a "fair tax".
For 90% of Americans, who take the "standard deduction", tax calculations aren't even "calculations". I could write an Excel spreadsheet to do them in an hour. The govt has ALL of the relevant information and could just do them for the people. You don't need to do some kind of "flat tax" or "Fair tax". It already is EASY
The problem is that most Americans don't understand it because of laws like this one.
You can still "target" your latin-dancing party. You can target "only white people" if you want to advertise your "Better Homes and Gardens" cookbook. You can target people for all kinds of ads, legally.
The law is only about housing.
This is pretty simple. We have some advertising laws in the USA.
You can't target housing ads towards certain ethnic groups
You can't target tobacco at children
You can't advertise medication without listing all side-effects
etc
Facebook fucked up by using a generic form for all advertising. They didn't perform their due diligence and verify that they were complying with the advertising laws. This is a REALLY STUPID mistake on Facebook's part.
Then you don't understand the law.
There is an EXPLICIT law that says that advertisers(facebook and google are advertisers) cannot target certain types of ads.
If they even ALLOWED the targeting, it would be illegal.
Similarly, many countries have laws that you cannot target children with smoking ads. If Facebook allowed tobacco companies to buy ads targeting children, they would be in deep shit
The problem is that Facebook naively didn't check the law about housing advertisement. This is a GIANT FUCK-UP on Facebook's part.
I understand that you want to default to the classic "safehaven" position, but that doesn't apply. Facebook isn't an internet forum when they post ads. They are an advertising company and advertising companies have been regulated for over a century.
It isn't needed.
This is obviously already part of Federal IT policy.
If they find hidden Nazi gold to finance the crypto-currency, then this is officially the sub-plot of a Neal Stephenson book.
Calling them out is _defending_ science, just be consistent, demand raw data. Ignore unsupported conclusions. Especially leftists concluding 'we'll just have to smash capitalism' (or any other group with an _obvious_ agenda).
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I don't think there is anything inherently crazy about saying that capitalism might cease to be a functional system to operate a global economy.
Capitalism is pretty much the laziest economic system you could possibly create. It is successful simply because it is so heuristically simple. It is the "natural selection" of economic systems. If it breaks, it will self-correct. However, just like natural selection, you can't just use it for everything.
We don't use evolution to develop new strains of rice. We don't use natural selection to farm. We don't use natural selection to develop cures for disease. At a certain point, despite the beauty, strength, and simplicity of natural selection, we had to use a more complicated system.
The UN paper isn't groundbreaking, but it isn't unscientific. Energy generation will create direct and indirect costs. As energy markets shift towards new generation technologies, those technologies will have more indirect costs. Current capitalistic models don't really have a good way to deal with these issues. In fact, we have had this issue before. The raw capitalism of the gilded age gave us the rampant pollution of shit-clogged streets and undrinkable water. This is why the USA wound up with a more refined vision of capitalism that saw more government regulation and oversight of pollution, because it was understood that these external costs were too high.
As usual, the Star Trek replicator "post-scarcity" world believers ignore how to get there the most quickly, which is the freedom to innovate with free market economics, aided by university research.
If capitalism dies, it will be because of its own success in a world of freedom and free people have moved on, and not because some power hungry snot in government decides for it on its own behalf.
Properly speaking, capitalism is a corollary of freedom, in the economic world.
I dont think anyone disagrees. Free-market capitalism is great. It is a bit like natural selection. You get very robust and successful specimens out of the process.
The problem is that just like natural selection, shit can get a bit out of control. The old animals don't simply move over and let the new animals in. The world has to burn a bit. You get malthusian collapses and periods of starvation. Everything eventually settles down and equilibrium is reached(after a few hundred generations), but it isn't a smooth transition.
Also, just like natural selection, stuff gets completely out of control if you pump unlimited resources into an environment. Imagine you had an aquarium, and you started pumping it full of fish food. The fish aren't simply going to eat until they are full and then allow the other animals to thrive. The larger fish will gourge themselves. Some of them will gourge themselves to death if you aren't careful. They will grow huge. They will still attack all of the smaller fish that they can now fit in their mouth. It won't be because of any need for food, rather it will be a basic predatory instinct. They will use their new size to dominate the fish tank. Even with the unlimited food supply, they will still be attacking all of the other organisms in the aquarium. They will pick the aquarium clean, until you have nothing in the tank but a few massive fish. The massive fish wont even be able to swim.
No one is saying that natural selection/free-market is bad. In fact, it is very good. Evolutionary algorithms are some of the best in the world to solve difficult computer problems. The issue is that they are messy. They are incredibly messy. They will require many generations of destruction to reach equilibrium. That is fine if we are talking about bits of data. It can be a bit more dubious if we are talking about human lives. They also frequently come up with solutions which are very counter-intuitive and downright cruel. Once again, not so bad in some realms. Awful when discussing human beings. The solution to the problem is to keep some hand on the system and make sure that the experiment of the free-market doesn't get too crazy. We don't want 5-year-olds working in mines or people being sold as slaves, both of which are free-market solutions.
You can debate how much 'regulation' you want on that experiment, but don't pretend for a second you want a completely unregulated free market. I can promise you that a world without regulation would be very messy and very ugly. After a few thousand years, it might settle down, but in the meantime many millions of people would suffer. So the real debate is only how tightly you want to rein in the experiment.
Now, as far as a post-scarcity world:
You want to get there more quickly? Why?
We have no idea how to handle that transition and the transition will be ugly as fuck. Lets be honest, we are pretty much already to a post-scarcity world.
Right now, the total energy cost to build a solar power plant is less than the output of the solar power plant. What does that mean?
Hypothetically I could build a 1 MW solar plant, and then exclusively energy from that solar plant over the next 30 years to build a 1.2 MW plant. That would include the mining, refining, fabrication, feeding the workers, harvesting their food, etc.
Unfortunately, the gains are pretty minimal and without an energy market it doesn't quite work out right now. However, we are on the precipice of a world where energy is basically just limited to how muc
I will make sure I alert all of the people in the Royal Society! They should remove the term "scientist" from all members prior to Isaac Newton.
^^
Damn lazy scientists who can't get real jobs!!!
If I ever build a time machine, I will go back and kick Isaac Newton and Leibniz in the balls so hard!! /s
what did they ever do to help mankind? Two homosexuals who just wrote books and played around in a library. Just a bunch of "scientists". They should have got REAL JOBS.
Science may seem esoteric and pointless, but amazingly, since we started doing this science shit we went from being a bunch of idiots to a rapid technologically progressive world. So maybe you should back off on attacking science? Unless you have a better idea of how to get people into outer space?
It is, but it would be an interesting campaign position if the Democrats pushed through a "tax reform" bill which gave massive tax deductions to the wealthy.
Obama even wanted to lower the corporate tax rate, and he couldn't pull it off despite almost all economists agreeing that it would be beneficial.
Even if the Ultra-Rich literally OWNED Hillary, I seriously doubt that the Democrats were suddenly going to start passing laissez-faire legislation and tax bills for that systemically favored wealthy Wall Street donors.
You can argue that Hillary was a "wall street friendly" Democrat and that she wouldn't be as hard on the rich as Bernie Sanders. That is a fair point. However, you can't pretend that a "wall street friendly" Democrat = "wall street friendly" Republican.
We don't actually conduct national elections based on the popular vote. That's so that the people in 48 other states in our republic aren't ruled by the dense urban populations in a couple of coastal counties.
I don't really care about all of this Trump vs Hillary bullshit, but this is mathematically not true. I really wish people would look at a map.
Those dense urban population exist in states with really high electoral counts. Think about it for even a second. Where are your "dense urban populations"? California, New York, Florida, Texas. Where do you get all of your electoral votes? California, New York, Florida, Texas!!!!
The electoral vote vs the popular vote is really only different in close elections. If you changed the rules, it wouldn't even change the outcome of elections(except Washington D.C. would suddenly matter).
It has nothing to do with urban vs rural. It hasn't mattered since the Civil War.
THE REAL REASON FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Electoral votes are awarded based on population, not on eligible voters. Even illegal immigrants count towards the total.
Originally, very few people were eligible to vote(land owning white males in most states). Voter turnout was around 5% of total population. The Southern Plantation States figured out that they would be at a big disadvantage if 'electoral' votes were based on eligible voters. They devised a system based on total population. This meant that slaves, women, native Americans, children, etc ALL counted towards your 'electoral' votes.
It was so lopsided, that they actually had to come to a compromise where slaves were only partially counted.(The 3/5ths Compromise). Why? Because Plantation states were sweeping the table on Presidential elections.
While California says you can't be fired for HAVING a political opinion, you can be fired for expressing it.
In the rest of the US, your boss can walk in and fire you just for posting a Pro-Trump picture on your personal facebook page. Alternatively, he could just ask every Republican to raise their hand and then tell everyone who didn't raise their hand, "You're fired".
California banned this practice.
However, your boss can still fire you for wearing a Trump hat to work or sending an internal email that advocates for Hillary Clinton.
Whistleblower Protection
You are a pretty weird whistleblower if you complain internally about a public practice. I cannot imagine anyone EVER considering this a case of whistleblowing.
That would be like an Apple engineer sending around an internal memo about the small battery in their new phones, and then people calling that "whistleblowing". You can't blow the whistle on something that everyone knows about!
Right to Discuss Working Conditions
May be viable. Unfortunately, the memo didn't really discuss working conditions. It discussed business practices. Working conditions addresses how the business practices have an impact on the employee. He was discussing how he felt they were wrong-headed and misguided. Those might be fair assessments, but they are not addressing HIS working conditions.
Did he work more hours because of the hiring practices?
Did he get less time off?
Did it impact him in any demonstrable way?
He was not discussing "work conditions". Work conditions would be his hours or wages. Not his opinion of how executives have decided to run the company. If he was discussing the impact that their choices had on HIS work, that would be different. He was just complaining about the impact to the company. That isn't "working conditions".
He was not discussing his political opinions. Criticizing the hiring practices of your company and the values they attach to their hiring IS NOT your protected political opinion. It is a direct critique of your employer.
If your employer promoted "green energy" and you said "green energy is a bunch of bullshit crap", you aren't expressing your political opinion. You are criticizing your employer. Even though some political parties hold this opinion, you are directing it at your employer.
Affirmative Action IS ILLEGAL in California. For the GOVERNMENT. It is illegal for the state of California to mandate affirmative action or for any government-run agency to enact affirmative action. It isn't illegal for private companies to promote ethnically-diverse workplaces, as long as they do not violate the Civil Rights Act.
Your third point is bullshit and meaningless.
You work at a power station, so you probably already realized that the real currency of the world is the kWh(or megajoule). Since 2010, solar and wind have been able to produce more energy during their lifetime than the total amount of energy needed to create/ship/install the product.
Robots build everything and we hypothetically have unlimited energy(we just need to use energy to build more energy production units).
That is known as a post-scarcity economy. That is what Keynes was beginning to point towards. Think of "Star Trek" or the Culture book series.
Anyway, I would argue that people work for 40-hours per week because it is the amount of work that keeps them sane. Work less and you feel lazy. We will probably always be doing about 40 hours of work, even in retirement.
No it isn't. The legal authority to create an agency isn't limited by the constitution. You are a moron.
The constitution limits the authority to pass laws. The federal department of education does not enforce any laws and is therefore entirely legal.
Have you read the constitution?
It actually isn't an acronym. It is an "initialism"
You mean education standards based on the expert recommendations of pedagogy experts and researchers?
You mean science standards that aren't based on religion or mythology?
Why doesn't it make sense to have a federal standard for education? Because we wind up with "common core"? You realize that common core was a wildly successful and heavily endorsed set of standards that almost everyone in education circles thought was a great idea? The only reason you hate it is because you are too stupid to understand how to teach math to an eight-year-old.
Can't wait to see all the anecdotes about chemicals that cause cancer.
This study is not stating that if we all lived in a paleo-era utopia that we wouldn't get any cancer.
It is simply stating that cancer isn't pre-cooked into our lives. If we lived in a perfectly sterile environment and did not expose ourselves to any energy of any kind, we would be very unlikely to develop cancer. We would just die due to a vitamin D deficiency and a lack of human contact.
I get it. All of this is confusing.
How about we don't get caught up in food trends?
The link between processed meat and cancer has been known for almost 100 years. One of the first two things the FDA did was regulate nitrates in sausage and ban sarsaparilla. We can be pretty confident that both of those things will kill you.
Alcohol? We banned that for nearly a decade because of rampant alcohol abuse and death.
Sugar? Fat? Red Meat? Who knows at this point. Don't worry about it too much.
It was relevant because it was one of the issues highlighted at the time.
Also, Reagan announced the overhaul as a RESPONSE to the strike, but it wasn't given the type of fast-track authorization that would have made it useful
I disagree with this general idea that the police can go fuck themselves because the NSA were a bunch of assholes. The NSA isn't even a law enforcement organization, it is a code-breaking espionage organization. Do you similarly ignore the FAA rules about smoking on an airplanes because the EPA caused a chemical spill?
That being said, I have no sympathy for the police position. They obviously want all the information they can possibly access. It makes it easier to do their job. Everyone wants their job to be easier and everyone thinks that rules don't really apply to them. Every computer user at a large company thinks the IT rules are bullshit and proves my point. It would be easier if they could backdoor into any cellphone and it would be easier if we left all of the accounting files in dropbox without a password. However, we aren't going to do either of those things because they are insanely reckless.
To be clear, Lithium based batteries have decay issues not present in other technologies. The "driving hard" and charging behavior of lithium isn't as deleterious as service life.
Well, just to blow your final assumption out of the water.
Pretty much every single person has agreed that the Leaf is a "piece of shit" car from a luxury perspective. That "$15k new car" is probably going to be just as nice as the leaf. You might want to use the Chevy Volt, which people generally like.
I disagree on a couple of points. Electricity is no more scarce than water. The Earth is being bombarded with 77 Petrawatts of solar energy every moment. We could harvest a great deal of that energy as solar/wind/hydro energy. We are not harvesting it. Electricity is not a "finite resource". We currently use fossil fuels(a finite resource) to create the majority of of electricity, but there is no concrete reason for electricity to be linked with a finite resource.
If we desalinate water, it will be sold by the volumetric unit. This creates a market price for water.This will change the water market. This is what you want to accomplish.It might crash and burn rather quickly, but it would accomplish your goal, so why oppose it?
His question was about banning from a federal district.
Barring someone from Washington DC for life might be seen as a violation of his 1st Amendment.